2022 (3) TMI 211 - AT - Income Tax

Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Unexplained cash credit - As per CIT-A AO is erroneous on account of making inadequate enquiry and lack of verification at the time of making assessment in respect of cash deposit in the bank account with State Bank of Patiala, Pilibanga by holding that the assessment has been framed without making inquires - assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS for verifying the source of cash deposits in the assessee s bank A/c - HELD THAT - AO after necessary deliberations had taken a possible and a plausible view, therefore, the Pr. CIT was clearly divested from exercising his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Our aforesaid view, that where an AO after making proper and detailed inquiry had on the basis of a possible view accepted the assessee s claim, then, the CIT in the garb of his revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act cannot direct the AO to carry out a fuller enquiry, is supported by the judgment of Nirav Modi 2016 (11) TMI 1498 - SC ORDER . In the aforesaid case, the AO after making a proper and detailed inquiry had formed a view that the amount received by the assessee as a gift from his relative was a genuine transaction. However, the CIT set-aside the order passed by the AO, with a direction to inquire into the capacity of the donors and therein decide about the genuineness of the gift transaction afresh. On appeal, it was, inter alia, observed by the Hon ble High Court, that where there are two possible views and the AO had taken one of the possible views, then no occasion to exercise powers of revision can arise. It was observed by the Hon ble High Court that the CIT could not have exercised his revisional jurisdiction for directing a fuller inquiry to find out if the view taken was erroneous, specifically when the view was arrived at by the AO after an inquiry. We are unable to persuade ourselves to find favor with the order passed by the Pr. CIT, Bathinda u/s 263 and thus set-aside the same and restore the order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Verification of the source of cash deposits.
3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's inquiry.
4. Evidentiary value of the "agreement to sell".

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, which allows the CIT to revise an order if it is deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The CIT set aside the original assessment order made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(3) and directed a fresh assessment. The tribunal found that the AO had conducted a detailed inquiry and had taken a possible and plausible view, thus the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263.

2. Verification of the Source of Cash Deposits:
The CIT questioned the AO's verification of cash deposits totaling ?31.50 lakhs in the assessee's bank account, suspecting inadequate inquiry. The AO had accepted the assessee's explanation that the deposits were sourced from the sale of agricultural land jointly owned with his brothers. The tribunal noted that the AO had verified the bank account and the sale agreement, and had also shared information with relevant tax authorities and the Sub-Registrar regarding the sale transaction and potential stamp duty evasion.

3. Adequacy of the Assessing Officer's Inquiry:
The CIT argued that the AO's inquiry was inadequate and lacked verification. However, the tribunal found that the AO had made proper and detailed inquiries, including obtaining and verifying the bank account details and the sale agreement. The AO had also taken steps to notify other tax authorities and the Sub-Registrar about the sale transaction. The tribunal concluded that the AO had conducted a thorough inquiry, and the CIT's direction for a fuller inquiry was not justified.

4. Evidentiary Value of the "Agreement to Sell":
The CIT contended that the "agreement to sell" had no evidentiary value as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which mandates a registered deed for the transfer of immovable property. The tribunal acknowledged that while the "agreement to sell" was not registered with the Registrar/Sub-Registrar, it was notarized and carried some evidentiary value regarding the sale consideration. The tribunal found no infirmity in the AO's reliance on the notarized agreement to establish the source of the cash deposits.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the CIT's order under Section 263, restoring the original assessment order passed by the AO. It concluded that the AO had made a proper and detailed inquiry, and the CIT was not justified in invoking Section 263 to direct a fuller inquiry. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the tribunal's decision was pronounced by placing the details on the notice board.